Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

bizwriter writes "The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the false patent marking suit. Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action, individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars — in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion — for incorrectly including patent numbers on products. Some companies named in such suits are 3M, Cisco, Pfizer, Monster Cable, and Merck. Even expired patent numbers can be actionable." Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are? Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readability bookmarklet, this is it.

Consumers are responsible for knowing the law, and we don't need any more legislation designed to protect people from themselves. The networks can say anything they please; it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean it stands a chance in hell of being the basis for a successful lawsuit.

Perhaps you missed the part where the NFL basically says "Do what we say or we'll file baseless lawsuits that will bankrupt you in legal costs even if you win." You shouldn't be able to threaten people with legal action un

Unfortunately, we don't have a "loser pays" legal system in the U.S. That is absolutely no excuse for enacting bad legislation; it means we need to fix the way the legal system works. There is a huge difference.

"Loser pays" doesn't really help, because 1) the loser has to be determined before payment can occur, so you still need money up front to defend yourself and 2) it allows the richer side to rise the stakes by throwing more and more money on their attack/defence, making lawsuits even more risky for Joe Average.

Loser pays actually helps a lot more than you're describing. It makes it enormously more feasible for attorneys to take cases on contingency, especially obviously ridiculous ones.

EVERY attorney I've ever spoken with (and that is a lot of them) has told me that if a case goes to court there is at minimum a 10% chance they will lose the case no matter how iron clad their argument. Even being correct is no guarantee that you will win once the case gets to a judge/jury. If we have a loser pays system that is a pretty substantial risk for a party who can't afford to lose.

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some form of loser pays in the system - we just have to be careful how i

Oh, and in short: you can STFU yourself. It's you who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People like you who would encourage an endless array of laws that do nothing to solve core problems are only feeding the fire.

Specifically if the RIAA issues a DMCA takedown notice because they noticed that your garage band's website has MP3s on it, but they were your garage band's songs, you should be able to sue them for $500 for every file they claimed was infringing! I wonder if you could get away with it under this law...

A copyright notice which claims more rights/restrictions than the law allows. For example, "no portion of this may be used without direct written consent" would impinge on fair use, as it is entirely legal to use portions for eduction, review, or criticism.

It's the consumer's responsibility to know the law. I can put a sign on my front door saying it's illegal to walk past it between the hours of 0300 and 0500. That doesn't make it true, and I don't see the need for any law preventing me from posting such a sign. In fact, I'm generally not in favor of nanny state legislation designed to protect people from their own ignorance when it comes to such matters.

All these qui tam actions might be lawyers trying to make a buck, but I feel they are basically beneficial because:(a) they help out small producers that actually know their own patents, and(b) they highlight the underlying meaninglessness of the patent system.

We must also remember that judges will weigh the social costs for the various violations. For example, I'd expect that the 21 billion Solo Cup lids case is rather "open and shut", as all those lids were falsely market, but the actual damages are rat

I'm sure you can sue for false DMCA takedown notices, but tracking down all those false ones will require more than $500 per incident. Imagine a false DMCA takedown notice earns the victim $10k just like abusive collections practices do. We'd most likely still see most victims just sit around and suffer quietly rather than fight.

Are you just using hyperbole or what? (e.g. the "Disney gets copyright extensions forever" meme.) Copyrights can and do expire.

(1) They will likely get another extension before "Steam Boat Willie" enters the public domain. (wash, rinse, repeat)(2) At life of author + 70 years, even my daughter will be dead before stuff produced when I was born enters the public domain. So, it may as well be forever.

You would need to go back to a system of copyright registration (which I would support) to make this work for copyright. You know if a patent exists by seeing if it has been issued; generally the only way to know if a copyright exists is to go to court.

Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them. Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited." Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it. CDs would commonly prohibi

Copyright does not work that way. What happens during a football game is just a collection of facts. Collections of facts are not copyrightable in most circumstances. For example, if I photocopied the phone book, that's infringement. If I OCR the whole thing, that's probably infringement. If I OCR just the names and phone numbers, and present them in any other format, it's not copyright infringement.

When you give an account of the game, as long as you're not repeating something the announcer said, you'

No. But the moment you fix that collection of facts into a tangible form, your fixation of those facts becomes copyrightable, and your contract with the NFL (as included on the ticket) automatically confers the exclusive ownership to the NFL, the moment you fix or state your account of those facts.

Why do you think it's necessary to attend the game? I can just as easily learn those facts by watching the game on tv, and posting those facts to a web page in real time.

204 only requires that a memorandum be signed to make the transfer of existing rights effective.

Well, let's bring up the specific language, including a useful definition from section 101:

A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Nonsense. Materials may be made before the patent expires. What about stuff a few years old that didn't sell at the regular price and is now being sold off for a low price? CD players for example. Should patent num

Yeah, but is that really what we want? At least if they include markings, they let you know that they think this product is covered by a patent. That is much better than a submarine patent that is hidden somewhere in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet.

Since you have the relevant patent numbers, any semi-competent competitor can go online, look up the patent, and see what exactly is covered by it. If the patent is expired, or simply doesn't apply to your competing product, you'll be able to see it right t

Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.

Yes but judges can create precedent by presenting a finding where existing law is vague. The legislature can respond to that by further legislation. Judges can also find laws to be unconstitutional, and these rulings might require passage of an amendment to overcome.

You hear a lot about "legislating from the bench" but this is part of the job. Judges are supposed to "legislate" by filling in gaps as cases present themselves which might have no clear precedent or no clear interpretation within existing law. (The legislature certainly can't be expected to think of everything.) And judges of both persuations do it, as they are supposed to.

The catch is, they're supposed to do it well. When you're nominating or confirming judges, and you absorb yourself with fetish issues like abortion or gun rights, you can end up with the sort of foolish judiciary we have today.

The catch is, they're supposed to do it well. When you're nominating or confirming judges, and you absorb yourself with fetish issues like abortion or gun rights, you can end up with the sort of foolish judiciary we have today.

Heh....can you think of any time in US history where one group or another wasn't trying to stack the bench with people favorable to their cause? I'll bet it's a technique that comes into use historically any time the time-honored technique of bribing fails to work.

It's pretty sad that normal relatively non-crazy people have come to accept this view of legal interpretation, when it is so severely fucked up.

First, it's fucked up because it incorporates a totalitarian assumption is that every possible circumstance should be governed by law, and that whenever someting happens that isn't covered by law it must have been some sort of oversight that should immediately be rectified.

Second, it's fucked up because it implies an unthinking acceptance of retrospective law. When

Only if you take legal and illegal to be logical opposites, but if you take 'legal' to mean explicitly allowed by law, and 'illegal' to mean explicitly forbidden, then there will be a wide and entertaining middle containing actions that are neither approved nor forbidden. People are creative and they shouldn't have restrict themselves to the list of officially approved actions or be subjected to an arbitrary and capricious legal system where the rules get made

No. If a case comes before the court, and the law doesn't cover the facts of the case, then the correct response is "case dismissed".

That sounds pretty stupid. Someone might do something that e.g. is hard to distinguish between murder and manslaughter since the law is vague or leaves ambiguity. The correct response isn't "case dismissed".

That couldn't happen. Murder is killing with intent, manslaughter is killing without intent, so there isn't anything in between.

But in the abstract, yes bad stuff can happen that isn't covered by the law. And there is nothing that a system governed by laws can do about such cases, except to make a new law, and get it right next time. That might seem unfair, but it beats the hell out of living in a system where no one really knows what will get them thrown in jail until after the door clangs shut behind them

They can impose limits based on common sense, as allowed by BMW v. Gore.

However, you're right in that there should be a legislative fix. California used to have a mechanism whereby someone could be sued by an unaffected person when that suit was "in the public interest." As an example, places of business were sued because the restroom door was perhaps one-half of an inch too narrow according to statute for wheelchair-accessible restrooms. Thousands of others were filed asking for damages of a few hundred

Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.

I don't think the law is bad, it was just never written to take into account 21 billion counts of false marking.

So while I can't see how any court would strike down the law as unconstitutional,a judge could certainly declare the statuatory damages to be unconstitutional.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are?

Never going to happen.

In the eyes of the Federal Gov, upholding patents and IPs are so important, it would be considered National Security to protect them. Seriously, what the hell does America have that's worth selling? Nothing except services and IP. We hardly manufacture anything anymore.

The U.S. hardly manufactures anything that requires lots of human labor. If the manufacturing process can be automated, companies will keep the manufacturing here.

Look at the tags on your clothes. I bet you have at least one item that says "made in Honduras/Mexico/etc of U.S. Material". Stitching is labor intensive, whereas turning raw materials into fabric is mostly done by machine.

With that said, there's still a ton of manufacturing in the U.S. - computers and robots have just replaced humans as the machi

Ya! We hardly manufacture anything. I mean we are only the very top manufactured goods producer in the whole world!

Yes really, the US still leads the entire world in manufactured goods. Now, China is on track to become the leader. If things keep going as they are in 5-7 years China will take over as the top, but because their production is growing so fast not because the US's is shrinking. That would still leave the US in a commanding second position.

Most of the CPU companies are American: Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, Freescale.

Not to mention Sun^H^H^HOracle, Texas, National, Analog (really), Atmel, Microchip INC, Zilog, Xilinx and Altera are processor companies (of sorts) I can think off the top of my head. The only other two I can think of off-hand are Fujitsu and Arm.

Not all of them fab CPUs. The big fabs are Intel, IBM, former AMD, TMSC, Texas and a few others. Bit it's also dominated by the US.

Let's hope all this patents chaos in the US (and the US trying to push their patents in other countries) doesn't end up in war in some years. I'll like to see US enforcing their patents this way on Russia / China / etc.

I'm going to have to say that the law is already sensible in this case. Here is the summary from the article:

The type of suit is called a qui tam action and is part of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729:
The statute, first passed in 1863, includes an ancient legal device called a "qui tam" provision (from a Latin phrase meaning "he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself"). This provision allows a private person, known as a "relator," to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant's conduct.

Basically, don't claim patents you don't own. Does anyone really have a problem with that? The damages are 'up to' $500 per incident (or per product), but I don't think any judge is going to fine a company trillions of dollars, and if he did, I don't think it would be constitutional.

Thanks for calling that out. I do hope that these provisions require that someone be damaged in order for there to be a judgment. I'd also hope that the damaged party (if indeed there is one) would get the judgment and not the "relator". Otherwise it seems likely that many of these cases would have merit (on the grounds that fallacious patent protection was claimed) but really be poorly veiled attempts to grab money when there was no actual injury.

Otherwise it seems likely that many of these cases would have merit (on the grounds that fallacious patent protection was claimed) but really be poorly veiled attempts to grab money when there was no actual injury.

My understanding is that this is exactly the purpose of this type of law. We don't want our police to be chasing every silly law (and they won't do it anyway, they don't have the resources), so we (or, our representatives) arrange the law so that there is motivation for someone else to chase violators of the law. They get rewarded, and the system stays fixed.

You may not like that system, and that is ok, but that is my understanding of the legal theory behind this type of thing.

How would you ever prove actual damage? Seems to me this law is in place to discourage companies from falsely claiming patents because it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate actual damage to an individual from such fraud, yet it's clearly in society's interest to prohibit it.

I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas. I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.

Do you really see no value in patents? It seems to me that as a society that we want to reward people who invent things. If we reward people for inventing things, it seems logical to punish people who lie about inventing things (eg false patent claims).

Certainly one can argue that the way we implement this is badly broken ( I think it is), but the basic idea seems sound.

It often takes resources in addition to manpower to invent things. If you are developing new software, all you need is a couple of thousand dollars in computer hardware. If you are developing a more efficient turbine blade design, or a process to make inexpensive biodegradable drinking glasses you may need to spend a lot on hardware.

If you spend a lot developing something, I think you should expect some return.

I don't understand the hubbub about expired patent markings. (1) It costs $ to create new dies for production, so such a requirement just costs companies more, which they have to pass along to customers. (2) Someone looking up the patent can see that it's expired, or is going to expire soon, and hey, here's a large part of the engineering behind the product, we can copy this instead of re-engineering it. That's part of why patents exist, to make that information public.

Because it says those items are covered by said patents, when those patents are either expired or not applicable. They could just leave them off the product to begin with or remove them when the times come. Costs are not directly passed to customers, if prices could be increased at will the company would have already done that.

So what happens to all the products that have already been sold and are marked with patent numbers after those patents expire? Should the manufacturer contact all the buyers to inform them the patent has expired? Should they file off the patent numbers?

One could actually argue that marking a product with an expired patent number serves the public interest: that way, anyone who wants to duplicate it can simply look up the patent number and follow the process!

I find absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with an item marked "patent #xyz" regardless of whether that patent is current or expired. If it's current, then looking up the patent number will tell me how to build it and - if I'm planning commercial distribution - who to license it from. If it's expired, it will still tell me how to build it and I will also know I don't have to pay for a license. Win-win.

If a company falsely labels its products with imaginary patent numbers, they deserve to be sued into oblivion. It's
outright lying to the public, and an attempt at intimidating would-be competitors. It's wrong and should be punished harshly.

Patents are overused as is, and one of the reasons they are often misused (eg against open source) is because it's easy and relatively risk free. If the costs
of misuse can be increased dramatically, many companies may think twice before doing it.

Since the premise of the whole thing is that the plaintiff is a friend of "our Lord the King" or the US Government and the defendant submitted false claims to it, and the plaintiff is not personally harmed, there is no need to award the plaintiff any damages. Problems solved, just rule that any damages awarded will go to the aggrieved party, or the US government in this case. Once the lawyers know they are not going to be getting a piece of the award, they will go find some one else to screw^h^h^h^h^h sue.

The whole point of qui tam actions are to encourage people to bring the suits in the first place. They do this with Medicaid fraud in many states, for example. The state might not have the resources to closely examine all possible instances of fraud, or private parties might have better information. So by giving people a cut off the award, you give them an incentive to look for the fraud and to bring it to the government's attention.

That's what us old-timers call fraud. It's not OK, no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it. Yes, sometimes it's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that doesn't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a (weak) opposing point and rush to post it. There's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that's corporations trolling with patents they don't own. If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents, what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you don't own?

Here [patentlyo.com] is a link to the court's decision. It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.

The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:

Congress has given to the inventor opportunity to secure the material rewards for his invention for a limited time [...] Patent markings are an essential component of this system. The "Patent No. XXX" imprint is, in effect, a "no trespassing" sign.

The plaintiff, i.e. the "troll", has not yet made his case. In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public." That remains to be determined.

But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example). It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e. to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage). I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here. The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???

It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.

If I intend to produce a product and decide not to or to alter the product due to someone falsely claiming they own a patent I should be able to sue and recover both real and punitive damages.
Recently our sour Supreme Court declared that corporations would be treated as real persons. Lies and false claims make real persons liable to punishments. Bailiff! Wack their peepees!!!

If a company can be sued for these quantities of money, effectively bankrupting any company on Earth, shouldn't the companies have people that make absolutely sure that all of this patent stuff is correct?

If the risks are that high, why not mitigate that risk by having a few people keep and maintain this is check? If you could get sued for $2Billion, having 10 people in a company, even at $1Million each is a big cost savings measure for the company.

http://www.williamsmullen.com/rocketdocketiplit/blog.aspx?topic=63&All=null&IsListParentTopic=true [williamsmullen.com]"Last week, in a case it described as one of "practically first impression," the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Solo Cup Co. that it was not liable for improper patent marking under 35 U.S.C. 292(a). Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No 1:07cv897-LMB/TCB (E.D. Va. July 2, 2009). The Court agreed with Solo that the advice of counsel it received to replace patent-marking molds with non-marking molds in a gradual fashion was reasonable. Solo's overall conduct was held to evidence a lack of intent to deceive the public. The Court also held that an "offense" under the statute is the overall decision to mark improperly, thereby rejecting Pequignot's argument that Solo should be penalized for each and every lid it marked."

"Solo also prevailed on summary judgment with respect to its fallback position, namely, that even if there were intent to deceive the public, the offenses punishable under the statute are the decisions to mark improperly, not each and every marking of a product. Thus, in an alternative holding, the Court decided that the maximum amount of damages for which Solo could be liable is $1500."

And in a recent article by Law Professor Thomas Field, http://www.ipfrontline.com/printtemplate.asp?id=24082 [ipfrontline.com]"The opinion in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F.Supp.2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Pequignot III), a case resolved last August, and now on appeal, signals a very different, perhaps more typical view of those who seek to recover under section 292(b). There, the court grants summary judgment for Solo because it was unable to find deceptive intent."

How about this is completely unrelated and if I really care about the list of patents on a product I'm probably treating them as a warning, not an ad, and I'd rather they be too-inclusive than super-exclusive?

How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants? In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress. That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded, with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble. That's what she'd get over here (and if I remember correctly, that's what she originally sued McD for). Make no mistake though, actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well... but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone. Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall, neither should this new form of patent trolling.

If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking, then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages. And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment. Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.

Well the US has been privatizing almost everything for a long time. San Francisco even had a private police station in North Beach funded by the merchants for the merchants, for most of the city's history.

The huge awards in the US courts tend to be around the idea of disgorgement of profits from the illegal act.

The biggest problem with the US legal system is that the wealthy know that to successfully litigate a case of 25k in damages is probably going to run 80k plus, as the cost of a deposition is about 5-

Inflation since then runs close to 1000-1500% (depending on initial year) than 60,000%, actually. Please check out this inflation calculator [westegg.com] if you would like to see for yourself.

Inflation adjustment is not as simple as what the westegg calculator makes it out to be.

Look at the results at measuringworth.com [measuringworth.com]. I would agree that I over estimated off the top of my head, as I over estimated inflation in the 1800's. Personally, I would say that the $70k number is probably the more relevant number as it puts the punishment about the twice the cost of hiring someone at minimum wage for the year.

It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke. It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use. Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge): (from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com] in case you want to look yourself).

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

McFact No. 9. McDonalds wouldn't make their coffee that hot if people didn't want it that hot. If its hotter than other restaurants, presumably that is their competitive advantage.

This came up in the trial. Managers were encouraged to turn the heat up because the ultra-hot coffee wouldn't cool down enough for the customers to cash in on the free refill unless they loitered long after they'd finished eating the food they'd ordered.

I'm sure McDonalds are a bunch of big boys and can handle it. Not really sure how this is a low blow...

I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not. McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee.

Care to cite your source?

$1.3M in daily profits from coffee would not be remotely shocking for a company with over 31,000 locations and 47 million customers daily. The gross margins on coffee are around 60% (look at Starbucks income statement [google.com] if you need proof) and McDonalds EBIT margin [forbes.com] in 2008/09 was 29.8%. McDonalds had revenues around $30 billion last year. If they really made $1.3M on coffee per da

How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?

So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior? The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics. They exist to make money. That is the ONLY reason most of them exist. If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.

If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.

In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.

This is simple a case of false advertising. The companies that are being sued labelled their products wrong. "Oh I forgot". Yeah, likely story. I see they did NOT forget to put the patent claim on the product. How odd is that eh?

If it is going to cost the likes of Monster Cable a few millions or even bankrupt them to get false patent claims of products, then I am all for it, and the people bringing these cases making a fortune? Well sometimes the person who cleans up the system gets paid.

Say that someone found a way to make serious money of prosecuting companies sending fake copyright take down notices, would we be against that as well? No.

If it is going to cost the likes of Monster Cable a few millions or even bankrupt them to get false patent claims of products, then I am all for it, and the people bringing these cases making a fortune? Well sometimes the person who cleans up the system gets paid.

Why not have the govt sue them, and use the collected money to finance the expansion of USPTO, so they can actually look at the patents they rubberstamp?

Say that someone found a way to make serious money of prosecuting companies sending fake copyright take down notices, would we be against that as well? No.

It's easy to see where the harm is in such a case. Somebody has actually done something, most likely created something*, and they're being trampled by a company for no reason other than the company has more money than them and can likely steamroll them, right or wrong.

Who is hurt by fake patent listings? "Oh, I was going to make a Tickle Me Elmo knoc

Those are the maximum damages allowable under the statute. Actual damages may be much lower; a reward of $0.01 or even $0.10 per cup might not be so unreasonable for committing a billion counts of fraud. What is interesting to note, however, is that one must prove both that either the cups were never patented, or if they were that they were manufactured after the patent expired.